This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Canada has an opportunity to remake world summitry

I spent the last few days in Shanghai talking to scholars who were wondering whether China should care about the G8 summit. They invited me because I attended the summit itself. Perhaps wrongly, they felt I might have something useful to say.

U.S. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper share a laugh July 7, 2008, during the first day of the G8 summit in Toyako, Japan. (JIM YOUNG / REUTERS NEWS AGENCY)

By David A. Welch

Fri., July 18, 2008

I spent the last few days in Shanghai talking to scholars who were wondering whether China should care about the G8 summit. They invited me because I attended the summit itself. Perhaps wrongly, they felt I might have something useful to say.

Their question is a good one. We might all ask whether we should care about the G8.

Generally speaking, there are three main views. The first is that the G8 it is a highly successful global board of directors – a modern version of the "Concert of Europe" – that provides good governance on a planetary scale. The second is that it is little more than an expensive photo opportunity for mostly unpopular leaders who use it primarily to try to boost their domestic standing. The third is that it is an elitist club of self-appointed apologists for neo-liberal global capitalism who do more harm than good.

There is truth and error in all three views. The G8 does manage to accomplish a few things, though most of the heavy lifting is done by the sherpas and the various other high-level officials who work year-round behind the scenes.

Article Continued Below

The summit itself is indeed a major photo op, but in informal face-to-face meetings leaders do narrow differences or reach agreements that they otherwise would not reach. Every year the summit generates a long list of commitments – 276 this year alone – compliance with which can be, and is, closely monitored.

The G8 does not govern the world directly, but it does signal the priorities of some of the world's most important countries, and commitments made at the G8 are often taken up by other institutions of which G8 countries are members.

Whether the G8 does more harm than good is a matter of perspective, but it is without question elitist and self-appointed, a fact that profoundly irritates many.

While the G8 is neither omnipotent nor irrelevant, it is increasingly clear that there is less and less that it can accomplish on its own. It began life in 1975 as a vehicle for macroeconomic policy co-ordination among six of the world's largest liberal economies: the United States, Japan, West Germany, France, Britain and Italy (Canada joined the following year; Russia officially joined in 1997). For its original task, the group was completely self-sufficient. But over the years its agenda has broadened and deepened, and on most issues eight are simply not enough. The G8 alone cannot handle global warming, for instance; all of the major greenhouse gas emitters must be brought on board any workable regime.

Moreover, the G8 represents a steadily decreasing share of the world economy. In purchasing power parity terms, it is down to 46 per cent from the 58 per cent the original six represented in 1975. Even protesters are losing interest.

Recognizing trends, the G8 has now adopted, in effect, variable-geometry summitry. Fourteen additional heads of state or government attended this year's Toyako Summit. The EU, as the "ninth" permanent member of the G8, represented an additional 23 countries. Since 2001, leaders of 33 non-G8 countries have attended summits, many on behalf of larger groups such as the G77 and the African Union. Various multilateral organizations now regularly attend. The G8 has become a de facto G-something.

Very clearly, if the G8 wishes to avoid irrelevance, it must expand or reach out. Here's where the Chinese come in. At the 2007 Heiligendamm Summit, the G8 recognized China, Brazil, Mexico, India and South Africa as the "Outreach Five" (O5) and committed themselves, through the "Heiligendamm Process," to institutionalized dialogue with these important emerging countries. China is by far the most significant of these, with an economy larger than the sum of the other four combined. France has said it would like to see China become a full member by the time its turn to host the summit rolls around again in 2011.

But letting China in alone is problematic. Brazil, India and South Africa represent much-needed geographic diversity. Mexico's discriminatory exclusion would cause great friction. Letting in all five would make the group unwieldy, undermine its intimacy and rapport, and do little to combat the image of an elite, self-appointed club.

At Toyako, the O5 made it clear that they were not going to be ignored. They demanded, and got, two sessions with G8 leaders, and they ostentatiously rechristened themselves the G5. Clearly they are not going to be "outreached" by anyone.

What to do?

The time is ripe to make a virtue out of necessity. As the on-deck host, Canada is in a perfect position to do it. Canada should let Italy hold the final G8 summit in 2009 and invite a larger group of summiteers to an inaugural "Leaders' Forum" at Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville in 2010. The elitist and exclusive G8 label should be ditched in favour of an inclusive moniker. The current G8 countries should remake themselves as the congenial and obliging "hosts" of an explicitly inclusive event who are willing and best able to shoulder the considerable expense of mounting annual multilateral summits on a rotating basis.

A variable-geometry Leaders' Forum would allow for issue-specific configurations. On issues that concern only a few, only those few need be present. On issues that concern many, as many as necessary could participate. During the event, leaders could hold as many bilateral or multilateral discussions as they saw fit. The host countries (the current G8) could still meet as a group, and the annual host could still issue a final communiqué – but on behalf of all rather than just a few.

One advantage of this gesture toward inclusiveness is that it could also improve representativeness. While it would be unworkable to bring together the leaders of all 192 members of the United Nations, Canada could invite Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania each to designate a representative head of state or government to attend the Deerhurst Leaders' Forum.

Clearly Canada would require the support of its other G8 partners to institute a major change of this kind, but the actual practice of the G8 is most of the way there already, and the payoff, both in terms of substance and optics, would be considerable. What better G8 country to take the initiative than Canada – the smallest of the lot, and still, perhaps, the best liked?

David A. Welch is a professor of political science and director of the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto. He attended the Toyako Summit as a member of the University of Toronto's G8 Research Group.

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com